Memorandum submitted by the delegation
of the UK Independence Party in the EU-Assembly
SIGNIFICANT PROPOSALS
IN APS 2008 WITH
CONCERNS ABOUT
THEIR SUPERSIDIARITY,
DISPROPORTIONATENESS AND
TURBIDITY-OF-INTENT
Executive Summary
The APS consists of three sections. In the first,
"1. A Consistent Course", the Commission introduces
its disturbing strategy for 2008 and the misleading terms (eg
"Europe", "EU-citizens", "institutional
settlement" etc) upon which this strategy, and much of the
EUs raison d'etre, are based.
In "2. Priority Actions in 2008",
policy-proposals are listed under seven headings: "2.1 Cross-cutting
Priorities" enlists "tackling climate change",
as a way of extending the EU's powers, in Europe and across the
world, and proposes to regionalise "the Lisbon Strategy",
as a means of "perforating" the remaining sovereignty
of the nation-states, while "a common policy on asylum and
migration" seeks to abolish nations' control of their frontiers.
"2.2 Prosperity" is about interfering
in "urban transport" and gaining control of merchant-shipping;
working towards direction of education, through "lifelong
learning" and "active citizenship"; taking over
research through a "European Research Centre"; hypocritically
posing as a friend to small business; further intruding into "financial
services and intellectual property rights", abolishing legitimate
and necessary "forms of State Aid" and encroaching on
tax-systems with "a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base".
"2.3 Solidarity" vaunts the
implementation of the appalling REACh-regulation; proposes, without
apology, to reform the disastrous CFP; to extend damaging "non-discrimination"
legislation from the work-place to society at large; to prepare
a fund (EGAF) to dampen rebellion following the job-losses which
EU-policies will cause; to drag back parts of the failed "constitution"
("fundamental rights" and "consolidation of consular
services"); to promote a skewed vision of "multilingualism"
and to produce propaganda in favour of "active European citizenship".
"2.4 Security and Freedom" uses
"terrorism and organised crime" to spread EU-influence,
over the police and the judiciary, to set up a "central database
of fingerprints" and to combat "radicalisation",
which could include suppressing opposition to the EU; "civil
protection", which involves the deployment of EU-paramilitaries,
is thrown in with enforcing "EU standards on food safety",
which is even more oppressive, but less emotive; "disaster
prevention" is another area where EU-forces might mount a
creeping invasion; a "recommendation on patient safety"
and "modernising legislation on medical devices" would
effectively infringe upon national responsibility for "Services
of General Interest"; a decision on GMO's seems to be being
discreetly postponed; however, the attack on folk-remedies, high-dose
vitamins etc (to the benefit of the pharmaceuticals lobby) continues;
"2.5 Europe as a World Partner"
evokes Orwell's vision of a "Eurasia", slyly taking
power through apparently benign, but essentially spurious, "environmental"
and "humanitarian" initiatives; attempting to create
its own energy-empire, further extend its borders, encourage the
formation of parallel, supra-national entities, impose its predatory
trade-policy through the WTO, deploy "EU-forces" in
Africa and South Asia, and use a limited form of "democratisation"
(where convenient) to undermine opponent-regimes.
"2.6 Better Regulation ..." pretends
to be reducing the EU's crippling "regulatory burden";
and
"2.7 Improving Communication... "
promises to increase the EU's propaganda-budget.
"3. General Framework For Human And
Financial Resources For 2008" consists of tentative and
fragmentary predictions for changes to parts of existing budgets,
purporting to show that all the above initiatives will cost very
little. This section is not considered in further detail in this
submission.
Evidence
(bold numbering as in APS 2008, Communication
from the Commission etc, Brussels 21 February 2007, COM(2007)
65 final)
1. "A Consistent Course"
No-one could accuse the EU-Commission, or the
EU-project generally, of inconsistency. The policies of the EU-institutions
are curiously semper eadem, like those of the Vatican,
or many-another non-democratic organisation. Whatever the people
they refer to as their "citizens" may think about their
policies—and even if these policies are rejected in national
referendums—those institutions dismiss all objections, as
"arising from incomprehension", and grind inexorably
on.
2. There is, indeed, inconsistency, between
what the institutions say and what they do—and this point
will be made with reference to several topics below—but,
in what they do, never: "wider and deeper", ad infinitum,
about sums it up, and nothing but abolition will divert them a
hair's breadth from their autocratic, "consistent course".
3. "The EU is pushing forward,"
the Commission writes, "with a wide range of ambitious
policies, showing our citizens how the European dimension is essential
to realising their aspirations in today's world."
4. "Our citizens" are, in fact,
the nationals of the adherent states, and "European"
refers only to this odd group of institutions—not to the
continent—but endless repetition seems to have convinced
many that there is such a thing as EU-citizenship and that, somehow,
the EU is Europe. Creating these impressions is, of course, part
of the process of creating the corresponding realities, and the
institutions use this method a lot: "consistency in inconsistency",
one might say.
5. "2008 will clearly be an important
year for the debate on the future of Europe," the Commission
goes on, "a constructive institutional settlement would
send a positive signal before the next European elections."
6. This "constructive institutional
settlement" is nothing other than the essential elements
of the rejected Constitutional Treaty, re-packaged—or, perhaps,
"camouflaged" would be a better word—so as to
avoid being put to referendums. The most essential of all these
elements is "legal personality"-for-the-EU; the element,
which would allow the institutions to become a sovereign government.
Unfortunately for the Commission, the more the vast, unreadable
Treaty is boiled down, the more conspicuous its most essential
element becomes. Other references to the Constitutional Treaty
and "legal personality" will follow in their turn.
2. "Part I: Priority Actions in 2008"
2.1 "Cross-cutting Priorities"
7. It is not clear how the items in this
section ("climate-change", energy-supply, "the
Lisbon Strategy" and "migration") are any more
"cross-cutting" than topics in several other sections
(eg "prosperity", "solidarity" or "better
regulation") unless "cross-cutting" is being used
to mean "most important".
8. The Commission goes on to say, "Tackling
climate change has moved to the forefront and will be an integral
part of the Commission's priorities in 2008 to secure sustainable
prosperity for Europe."
9. Socio-economic engineering will be possible
on an undreamed-of scale (this Commissarial exponent of anthropogenic
climate-change hopes) if only most people can be persuaded that
the world will be destroyed by any failure, on their part, to
abide by the dictates—as interpreted by the Commission—of
"the precautionary principle".
10. "2008 will be a crucial year
for taking forward the Energy and Climate Change Package adopted
by the Commission in early 2007: major actions should include
work towards the creation of a European gas network and electricity
grid, further steps to promote energy efficiency and sustainable
energy, a revision of the EU oil stocks system to enhance energy
solidarity between the Member States initiatives to follow up
the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan, and enforcement
of the competition and internal market rules in the energy sector."
11. If this sentence is as inelegantly structured
as the thinking behind it, then the maintenance-cuts, illicit
power-transfers and blackouts, on both seaboards of North America,
will soon be reproduced in the Commission's "Member States".
Whoever heard of knocking the flotation-chambers of a ship's hull
into one, floodable cavity? What about "all your eggs in
one basket"? Other things being equal, an array of discrete
systems is as many times more secure (than one large one) as the
number of components it consists of; but, ever consistent, the
Commission can proceed only by lumping everything together, because
only thus can everything be completely, and centrally,
directed. Even the likes of the current HMG are likely to baulk
at some of it.
12. "The EU should use its leadership
to step up the international pressure for global change: key to
this is the Global Climate Policy Alliance, which aims to engage
developing countries on climate change, with a view to broadening
participation in the post-2012 international climate change regime."
13. It is not at all clear what this "Global
Climate Policy Alliance" is. The nearest match achieved by
Google is as follows.
Gender Equality and Climate Change Policy
Climate Alliance—Klima-Bündnis—Alianza del Clima
e.V. Climate Alliance of European Cities with Indigenous Rainforest
Peoples www.climatealliance.org
funded by the European Commission, DG EMPL,
co-funded by the Ministry for Family, Youth, Women and Elderly,
Germany
14. More importantly—and in keeping
with its real intent—the first part of this sentence should
be reversed. It ought to read: "The EU should use the international
pressure for global change to step up its leadership."
15. "In addition, 2008 will see
the first results of a further effort to implement the Lisbon
Strategy at regional level through new European cohesion policy
programmes, and new rural development policy programmes, for all
EU Member States to be adopted in 2007."
16. This, presumably, means that the "Lisbon
Strategy" has not been implemented at regional level yet,
but that, in a "further effort", it soon will be, and
tax-payers' money will flow anew to "regional" bodies,
thus by-passing, and eroding, the authority of national governments.
How often the EU-institutions express their desire to become transparent!
Perhaps they're getting there, in a way, after all! (see also
43 and 44)
17. "In 2008 the Commission will
propose further steps towards a common policy on migration and
measures to achieve a Common European Asylum System by 2010,"
and, "In 2008, the External Borders Agency will be
further developed and Member States will be supported in tackling
illegal migration through a European surveillance system."
18. If "Member States" had not
stopped controlling their own borders, the problem of excessive
and unsuitable immigration would never have arisen (and it could
now be solved, by the resumption of border-controls) despite the
impoverishment caused, in the Third World, by EU trade-policies,
predatory IMF-requirements and the occasional horrific attack
by "the international community". How convenient that
the pitiable influx now appears to be uncontrollable, unless the
EU rides to the rescue with its spine-chilling "Common European
Asylum System", "External Borders Agency" and "European
surveillance system"! Full marks from Machievelli! (Please
see also 72(iii))
2.2 "Prosperity"
19. "To reduce the negative impact
of the transport sector on the environment, the Commission will
propose an Action Plan on Urban Transport, a White Paper to promote
the competitiveness and efficiency of maritime transport due to
better inclusion of short sea shipping in the logistic chain,
and a legislative proposal to limit nitrogen oxide emissions from
aviation."
20. While posing, Canute-like, as administrator
of the world's weather systems, the Commission pays lip-service
to the (common market) "competitiveness and efficiency",
which provided its only popular mandate in Britain (1975) Both
postures, it is now clear, are essentially excuses for grabbing
power from democratic institutions. The EU does not work, either
economically or environmentally, and should not be allowed to
continue gobbling up national responsibilities, as though it did.
21 "Lifelong learning continues
to be a crucial element of the Lisbon strategy: it is central
to competitiveness and employability but also promotes personal
development, active citizenship and social inclusion"
22. So, naturally, the EU should be allowed
to make further inroads into education—one of the last areas
over which it lacks complete authority—in order, no doubt,
to show "our citizens how the European dimension is essential
to realising their aspirations in today's world"! (see
section 1. and
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l—077/l—07720070316en13541361
ie COMMISSION
TITLE 15 — EDUCATION AND CULTURE
CHAPTER 15 06 — FOSTERING EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
Chapter 15 06 — Total Commitments (2007)
€ 36 685 672
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l—077/l—07720070316en13501353.pdf
ie COMMISSION
TITLE 15 — EDUCATION AND CULTURE
CHAPTER 15 05 — ENCOURAGING AND PROMOTING
COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF YOUTH AND SPORTS
Chapter 15 05 — Total Commitments (2006)
€ 111 965 000)
23. "From 2008 the European Research
Centre (ERC) will be supported by an executive agency to allow
it to play its full role as a pan-European funding agency for
frontier research."
24. International institutions, like many
co-operative efforts, can be highly beneficial, but cease to be
so, if they become coercive powers in their own right. No-one
would object to a genuinely European research-centre, but the
ERC is an EU-institution, designed to suck the life-blood out
of national research-programmes, not to nurture and enhance them.
25. "Based on the results of the
Single Market Review, which will be presented in 2007, the Commission
will bring forward legislative proposals to allow citizens and
companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),
to benefit fully from the internal market."
26. While all the policies of the EU favour
big business—which has the resources to cope with hyper-regulation,
with large, uniform registration-fees, international distances
and appeals to the courts, and often functions as an acknowledged
"economic partner" of the Commission, in whose secret
committees it shapes policies advantageous to itself—the
EU prates, just as consistently—but ineffectually—about
helping small business. This is because the EU is by no means
secure in its "consistent course", and cannot afford
to alienate a sector as large as small business, while its inhabitants
still have meaningful votes. Statements inconsistent with actions
are therefore required.
27. "Initiatives may for example
include proposals in the areas of financial services or intellectual
property rights."
28. These are initiatives beloved of multi-national,
big business—not of "citizens" or small business.
The Commission's plans for enforcing a "Community Patent"
(which already allows software-patents) for example, and criminal
penalties for infringement (intentional or otherwise) of designs
and copyright, are a power-grab, not only on its own behalf, but
also on behalf of its large "economic partners". The
failure-rate of smaller businesses will continue to rise, under
this onslaught, and the innovative software-base, which consists
almost entirely of small businesses, could be eliminated completely.
29. Also in this paragraph: "Enforcement
activities... targeting the most harmful anti-competitive practices
and forms of State Aid..." (Perish the thought that an
elected government should be able to preserve essential, national
industries, which, once destroyed, it might not be able to re-build!)
and "a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB)"
which, like initiatives in education, worms its way closer
to control of one of the last vestiges of independent, national
(democratic) existence—in this case, the tax-system.
2.3 "Solidarity"
30. "The implementation of the
Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH)
legislation is a key test to show Europe's capacity to enhance
the competitiveness of European industry while improving the health
and environment for European citizens."
31. This huge, appalling regulation—which
will simply become law as a statutory instrument—is a charter
for large firms to sweep thousands of smaller rivals from the
market place. In many cases, such smaller firms—dealing,
for example in small, but essential, quantities of large numbers
of rare metals or highly active substances—are irreplaceable,
because the expense of REACh-compliance, substance-by-substance,
is greater than the foreseeable profit, and because even large
firms will then find it difficult to set up dedicated departments,
and pay research- and registration-fees, in the attempt to fill
the gap, which the loss of so much expertise will leave, and for
what?
32. Above all, the REACh is a vast exercise
in bureaucracy, which, besides laming wide swaths of industry
(with expensive, negative—ie "my substance is not dangerous"—reporting-duties)
will do nothing to improve the positive controls provided by national
governments today. Rather, by demanding the registration of all
substances, it will distract attention from genuinely risky ones,
and jeopardise the economy to such an extent that genuine environmental
and conservational projects will have to be abandoned as too costly.
This is the long shadow of the Commission's Canute-pose. What
kind of society does it think it's creating?
33. "As regards the Common Fisheries
Policy (CFP) the Commission will come forward with a major recast
of the control framework with a view to strengthening enforcement
across the Union."
34. Quite apart from the fact that British
fisherman now have access to only 18% of catch in Britain's territorial
waters, that the fleet is a ghost of what it was, livelihoods
and communities have disappeared and an important, independent
food-source has thus been damaged and sequestered... the concern
here is that the CFP has been an act of environmental vandalism
almost beyond belief. For decades, the CFP—rather than prescribing
days-at-sea, per area, per vessel—has demanded that excess
catch be thrown back into the sea as "discards". The
Commission has insisted on this and—despite declining fish-stocks—consistently
refused to recognise that the Faroes, Norway and Canada, which
all operate days-at-sea policies, also continue to possess stable
fish-populations. However, this year, without apology, the Commission
has announced that its "discards" policy is to be replaced
by a days-at-sea policy. That seems to be a part of what the above
statement means. Perhaps the Commission is now satisfied that
the British fleet has declined to the point of no return.
35. "The Commission will, in particular,
propose new initiatives designed to prevent and combat discrimination
outside the labour market—based on gender, religion, belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation and to enhance a better
reconciliation between family and professional life."
36. This means that the un-elected Commission
will lay down the same criminal codes of courtesy and morality,
in every walk of life, for 27 different countries. These codes,
furthermore—and as we have seen from anticipatory versions
already introduced—do not improve courtesy or morality,
but provoke spurious victim-hood, and justifiable resentment,
and provide the means for favoured political pressure-groups to
impose their views on everyone else. Insult and injury have never
been better dealt with better than in English Common Law, which
considers each case on its merits. The insertion of a list of
special grounds, upon which especially people may not be insulted
or injured, is superfluous and, in itself, unfair discrimination.
37. "Proposals to promote social
solidarity will include possible interventions by the European
Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGAF) set up to complement the
efforts of Member States to support the efforts of workers made
redundant due to market opening to find and retain new jobs"
and "The Commission will present new proposals on
how to ensure the adaptability and flexibility of the European
labour market while ensuring a high degree of social protection
("flexicurity")"
38. Globalisation undoubtedly has much to
answer for, without being made a scapegoat for the results of
the Commission's frightful politico-socio-economic experiment,
but, as these results bite, many will suffer, and the flames of
rebellion (ie lack of "social solidarity") will have
to be sprayed with cash. This will provide new opportunities for
the coercion and corruption, for which the EU's funding-procedures
are justly notorious.
In addition, as several trade-union leaders
have observed, the Commission's "flexicurity" requires
a lot of "flexi" without providing much "curity".
This, above all, is why the Commission considers EGAF to be a
prudent provision.
39. "To promote and protect fundamental
rights and European citizenship, the Commission will propose further
measures for the consular protection of EU citizens travelling
outside the Union."
40. The references to "fundamental
rights" and "European citizenship", and the implication
of amalgamated consulates (which are explicitly mentioned in other
Commission-documents, eg the "Legislative and Work Programme
2007") are all escapees from the wreck of the Constitutional
Treaty. However, as mentioned in 1., the only important provision
in that Treaty is "legal personality" for the EU. Once
the EU has that, it can, for example, accredit ambassadors, open
consulates, sit on the UN Security Council, declare war and impose
every other provision of the Treaty, including the Charter of
Fundamental (positive) Rights, thus abolishing any right, which
it has not codified, and, in addition, awarding itself the power
to suspend even these codified rights, "if necessary".
41. "The Commission will launch
new initiatives together with the Member States to promote multilingualism,
which reflects the cultural and linguistic diversity of the EU
and contributes to its prosperity."
42. This is another possible avenue for
intrusion into child-education, undercover of promoting a common-market,
and employing a euphemism to indicate—in defiance of the
exigencies of world-trade—that only the languages of EU-adherent
territories are to be promoted.
43. "Finally, the Commission will
implement the 2008 European Year of Intercultural Dialogue in
support of cultural and linguistic diversity and promoting active
European citizenship."
44. The efforts of EU-, and EU-supported
(especially German) bodies, in this area, have so far been directed,
most significantly, at promoting minority languages, within sovereign
nations, in order to undermine the integrity and identity, of
those nations, and to impair the universal communication, within
those nations, which a common language confers, and which is essential
to democracy. Regarding "European citizenship", please
see 4, 21, 22, 39 and 40.
45. "Solidarity: key actions envisaged
for 2008
"Justice and Home Affairs
"Legislative proposal in the
field of successions and wills"
46. This is one of the items, not mentioned
in the text, which appears in the summary-table, and which clearly
proposes to encroach on legal matters, which are not part of the
responsibilities governments have signed away.
2.4 "Security and Freedom"
47. "The Hague Programme (2005-09)
remains the framework for strengthening cooperation to promote
freedom, security and justice in the EU: further actions will
be taken forward to fight organised crime and terrorism, including
measures to facilitate the exchange of information between law
enforcement authorities and preventive measures targeting radicalisation."
48. The summary-table for "Solidarity:
key actions etc.", referred to in 45, clearly mentions "Justice
and Home Affairs", and yet, here, the new name for the second
pillar ("Freedom, Security and Justice") is used instead.
The Hague Programme http://www.euractiv.com/en/justice/hague-programme-jha-programme-2005-10/article-130657
exploits convenient terrorist-outrages to erode the pillar-structure
of the Treaties, without proper process, agreement or ratification.
This is the kind of "freedom, security and justice",
which the EU can be relied upon to provide.
49. Particularly worrying are the references
to information-exchange and "targeting radicalisation",
which mean, respectively, the central accumulation of data on
all the inhabitants of EU-territories (see also 53, below) and
state-sponsored, political manipulation.
50. Considering that the EU's institutions
always label persons, or parties, opposed to the EU, as "extremists",
"far-right", "far-left", "xenophobic",
"hard-liners" or "ultra-nationalist", it is
easy to see how measures targeting Muslim radicalisation (the
invited assumption) will be used to deprive legitimate opponents
of their democratic rights, or to condone such deprivation where
it already exists. In Belgium, for example, the country's largest
party, the anti-EU Vlaams Blok, was proscribed, and its
successor, Vlaams Belang, is routinely denied statutory
media-access and officially derided, ironically enough, as "undemocratic".
51. "The Commission will also propose
further measures to promote the safety and health of EU citizens,
including measures to build on current cooperation in civil protection
and efforts to ensure and enforce EU standards on food safety,
animal health and welfare, and plant health."
52. Amid a plethora of health's and safety's—as
though they were not oppressive enough in themselves—lurks
this reference to building on "current cooperation in civil
protection", which refers to forming EU-forces for emergency-use
in any EU-territory. These forces already exist. They are based
at Vincenza, in Italy. They have a rather spine-chilling web-site:
http://www.eurogendfor.org/ Even more hair-raising is the report
of the Seville Conference on the "European Security and Defence
Policy" http://www.stimson.org/fopo/pdf/novosseloffpresentationesdp.pdf
53. "Security and Freedom: key
actions envisaged for 2008
Fighting Organised Crime and Terrorism.
"Implementing a centralised
database of fingerprints.
54. Please see 49, above. Note also that
the summary-table for "Security and Freedom" features
many interesting and important points not referred to in the corresponding
text. How like the Commission to avoid expanding upon subjects
(eg policing, health-services and GMO's) most likely to prove
controversial!
55. "Security and Freedom: key
actions envisaged for 2008
Fighting Organised Crime and Terrorism.
"Strengthening the cooperation
between Member States through EUROJUST in investigating and prosecuting
serious cross-border and organised crime."
56. Unless the wording here is merely sloppy
(and this cannot be ruled out) it would appear that co-operation
in EUROJUST can be extended to "organised crime", whether
this "organised crime" is "cross-border" or
not. This, in turn, requires a definition of "organised crime",
which might be difficult to formulate, unless any co-ordination
between individuals, for the purpose of committing a criminal
offence, is to be regarded as "organised".
57. Security and Freedom: key actions
envisaged for 2008
"Strengthening the EU Civil
Protection Mechanism and developing an integrated strategy on
disaster prevention for disasters occurring within the EU or in
countries participating in the mechanism"
58. This seems to picture the EU as a kind
of King Canute, once again ("prevention for disasters occurring")
but it has more to do with gradual invasion, as portrayed in the
wonderful "Yes, Minister!", where Sir Humphrey Appleby
asks Rt Hon Jim Hacker at what point he would use "the bomb",
during an invasion of West Berlin by the Democratic Republic:
"The East-Germans send a fleet of fire-engines
to help the West Berlin fire-brigade tackle a major conflagration...
do you use the bomb?" asks Sir Humphrey.
"Of course not!" retorts Jim.
"Then they send police to help quell looting
and rioting... do you use the bomb?" Appleby persists...
and so on... eventually West Berlin is occupied by East German
troops, and Mr Hacker's deterrent was never of any use to him.
This shows the effectiveness of the EU's softly-softly method,
which also (by the way) would eventually allow it to acquire "the
bomb", from Britain and France.
The answer to Sir Humphrey's "bomb-question"—and
essential to the effectiveness of any military deterrent—is
not to let the "fire-brigade" cross the border in the
first place; and, likewise, to reject Commission-proposals of
this sort.
59. Also (in 57) it is not entirely clear
whether "the countries participating in the mechanism"
excludes EU-territories. That is, will some EU-territories be
able to opt out, or will opting-out only be possible for other
"countries"?
60. Security and Freedom: key actions
envisaged for 2008
"Recommendation on patient
safety and the quality of health services."
61. The power of "recommendations",
from the Commission, should not be underestimated. They can throw
whole business-sectors into frenzies of anticipatory compliance—as
occurred recently with copyright-societies, after a recommendation
on a "European Copyright System"—but, in this
case, the Commission is looming over a vast service-industry,
which it dearly desires to prise from the control of democratic
government and make into an EU-regulated, multi-national big-business.
62. "Security and Freedom: key
actions envisaged for 2008
"Developing a legal framework
for the risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) of genetically modified food and feed."
63. The Commission is under pressure from
American governments, the WTO and Bio-tech companies, on the one
hand, and opponents of GMO's (+ most of the population) on the
other, to make up its mind on this subject. The companies may
well already be "economic partners" of the Commission—there
is no way of knowing—while many of the opponents are also
among the most vociferous advocates of the Commission's stance
on anthropogenic climate-change. What a position for a would-be
super-power to be in! The answer is to wait until it is a super-power,
whereupon the anti-GMO-ists (+ the rest of the population) will
have to lump it. The item in 62 appears to be a delaying tactic.
64. Security and Freedom: key actions
envisaged for 2008
"Review of the legal framework
on pharmaceuticals."
65. This is another thorny problem. On the
one hand the big pharmaceutical companies, which are almost certainly
"economic partners"; on the other, many hundreds of
thousands, perhaps millions, of people, who treasure their herbal
and mineral remedies, high-dose vitamins etc. How do you implement
the outcome of your stakeholder-consultation (ie the policy recommended
by the "economic partners")? In this case, however,
the Commission has already plumped—and plumped inevitably
for big business—alienating a significant minority of pro-EU
parties' supporters, and driving their folk-remedies underground.
66. Security and Freedom: key actions
envisaged for 2008
"Modernising of the legislation
for medical devices, to improve patient safety while ensuring
a clear regulatory environment."
67. "Services of General Interest"
(SGI's) are another battleground, where the Commission's plan
for the "withering away of the [nation-] state", in
an environment dominated by global corporations, is opposed by
the very labour-unions and welfare-organisations, who make up
the balance of the Commission's "social and economic partnership".
In the area of health, in particular, the clash between the "social",
and the "economic", components of this partnership,
actually led to the exception of SGI's—"Services of
General Economic Interest" (SGEI's) and "Services of
General Non-Economic Interest" (SGNEI's)—from the "Services
Directive", and "competence" to define, and regulate,
them being left to the member-governments! The Commission must
therefore content itself, spider-like, with looping thread after
inconspicuous thread, of which this is one of many, around health-service
provision.
2.5 "Europe as a World Partner"
(Towards Orwell's Eurasia and global Big-Brotherdom—this
title actually means, "Europe as a World Power"!)
68. "Europe must continue its efforts
to act with a strong and united voice in the world, based on our
common values and objectives, in full coherence with our internal
policies, and making full use of all the assets and policies at
its disposal to defend the Union's interests."
69. "To act with a... voice",
is a strangely mixed metaphor, implying a desire, not just to
speak (as one does, with a voice) but to avoid mentioning force
(with which—when "strong and united"—one
acts) Also, Europe's appurtenances start of as "its"
(efforts) then switch to "our" (common values, objectives,
internal policies) then back to "its" (disposal) and
end up as "the Union's" (interests) Even allowing for
the poor standard of literacy prevalent in EU-institutions, such
oddities neatly betray the schizophrenic, or disingenuous, nature
of the EU-construct.
70. "Core policies like addressing
climate change and biodiversity, demographic change and migration,
terrorism and organised crime, or energy needs can only be tackled
in the global context."
71. Here, the writer—under the influence
of the list of problems, which these "core policies"
are supposed to be "addressing"—forgets that the
subject of the sentence is "core policies" (which are
implemented, or pursued, not "tackled") Would any democratic,
European government set out its "core policies" in so
off-hand a manner? Perhaps, on the other hand, these are not "core
policies" at all, or are not what they appear to be.
72. Indeed, such irritating inconsistencies
betoken a deeper malaise, which is a fundamental mendacity and
hypocrisy:
(i) all human activity accounts for considerably
less than 10% of global CO2 production, so that—even if
the alleged slight increase in atmospheric CO2 were instrumental
in raising temperature (which seems doubtful)—there would
still be no climatological justification for the socio-economic
revolution, or arrogation of powers, which—on the grounds
of excessive, anthropogenic CO2 alone—supra-national institutions,
like the EU, are attempting.
(ii) "Core policies like addressing ...
biodiversity" is another slovenly, non-sensical expression.
These "policies" are supposed to be "addressing
[loss of] biodiversity", although they should actually
be said to be attempting to preserve existing biodiversity,
because it is by no means demonstrable that biodiversity, in general,
is being lost. The biosphere evolves continuously, constantly
producing new species. No-one knows, for example, how many species
there now are in genera like Rubus (brambles) or Taraxacum
(dandelions) because every generation of such genera produces
hundreds more. This "core policy" of the Commission
is thus really about preserving certain existing species for aesthetic,
academic or propaganda reasons. It is not an imperative for human
survival, let alone a good excuse for abolishing or emasculating
democracy, which is what it is mainly intended to achieve. Besides,
if we really want to preserve this, or that, endangered ecosystem,
we should remember that local and national ownership of conservation
projects is essential to their success, which can only be impaired
by the intrusion of some remote autocracy.
(iii) "Core policies like addressing...
demographic change"—if this does refer specifically
to the ageing of populations—would be worth looking at,
but what are they? The only policies the Commission admits to,
in this area, are euthanasia, "work-life balance", parental
leave and a huge, inassimilable influx of immigrants (please see
also 18) With the exception of immigration, which requires a complete
re-casting of present, predatory trade-policy, these are not "core
policies", which "can only be tackled in the global
context", and they do not need the EU for—nor can they
usefully involve a structure like the EU in—their implementation.
(iv) "Core policies like addressing...
terrorism" should also be a misnomer, but is it? When
we consider the carnage wrought by "our" troops in Serbia,
Iraq and Afghanistan, it must be admitted that, in EU-territories,
terrorism is a minor matter. For "addressing" it to
become a "core policy", that policy has to be about
something connected with terrorism, rather than about terrorism
itself. This "something" can only be the fear of terrorism
and the remarkable opportunity it provides for the assumption
of sweeping powers. It is true that re-casting "our"
predatory trade-, and invasion-, policies—which are the
principle motivation for terrorism—does have to "be
tackled in the global context", but the EU is an intentional
obstruction to this. The nations of Europe should take back their
seats at the WTO.
(v) Is it true that "core policies
like addressing... organised crime... can only be tackled in the
global context"? On the contrary, the removal of frontiers,
the imposition of a single currency, the progressive loss of patriotic
policing and the trivialisation of capital offences—all
EU-policies—have made EU-territories a play-ground for criminal
syndicates. An insane dedication to opening large gambling-resorts
can only make matters worse. If "addressing... organised
crime" is a "core policy" of the EU, then this
policy cannot be directed at suppressing or eradicating organised
crime, and to allow it to promulgate this policy, "in the
global context", would be extremely imprudent.
(vi) "Core policies like addressing...
energy needs can only be tackled in the global context."
Like policy on "migration" and "terrorism"—but
unlike policy on the other four subjects mentioned in 70—policy
on energy-supply does frequently require an international dimension.
It does not, however, require, or benefit from, a supranational
dimension, and, as with immigration and terrorism, it is quite
clear that the EU is a barrier, not a gateway, to a useful international
dimension. While purporting to represent its member-governments,
at the WTO, or in negotiations with Russia or Algeria, the EU
essentially represents itself or, at best, a few of its most influential
supporters. It uses its position primarily to augment its own
role. This is human nature. Indeed, it is almost the only thing,
about the EU, which does appear to be human. The remedy for human
nature in government is democracy. The EU cannot support meaningful
democracy. Only states with a common language can do this. The
EU must be abolished.
73. "Accession negotiations will
be pursued on the basis of the renewed consensus on enlargement
and the enhanced rules governing the accession process agreed
at the December 2006 European Council."
74. This would appear to contradict the
argument, put by many apologists for the Constitutional Treaty,
that this Treaty is necessary for further "enlargement".
On the other hand, what was agreed at Brussels may have been more
extensive than was announced. If so, then 73 contains two elements—"enlargement"
and the "constitution"—on which the eurocracy
and "citizens" are implacably at odds.
75. ("...future status settlement
for Kosovo.") "A positive outcome is also key to a significant
improvement in Serbia's progress on its path to the EU."
76. "A positive outcome" means
cutting Serbia down to the size of an EU-province, by completing
the process of destroying the Yugoslav EU-rival. The Serbs have
been, and still are being, hunted out of Kosovo, by surrogates
of the "international community", and Kosovo's considerable
mineral-wealth has been seized by multi-national companies. Nowhere,
until this process began, was "humanitarian intervention"
by the "international community", quite so blatantly
nothing of the sort.
77. "Work to develop closer political
and economic ties with partners around the world—including
Russia, Ukraine, Japan, Korea, China, India, ASEAN and Latin America—should
be intensified" and "The transatlantic partnership
should be strengthened and constantly adapted to the evolution
of common challenges, reflecting ... our responsibility for contributing
to an international environment conducive to peace, security,
prosperity and sustainable development."
78. "Eurasia", "Eastasia"
and "Oceania" were the three mega-states of Orwell's
"1984". Their germs may be glimpsed in the EU, ASEAN
and FTAA of today, as may the "continuous war", which,
according to Orwell, enabled the mega-states' elites to keep their
"citizens" in sustainable subjection. The mega-states
are not yet formed, however, and the "continuous war"—ostensibly
against a foe begotten by the CIA and (Pakistani) ISIS in Baluchistan
(and since then inflated enormously in reaction to the aggression
of the "international community")—is still limited
to mopping up pockets of resistance to globalism. It is not too
late to restore democracy, but time is getting short. "Minipeace",
it will be recalled, was Oceania's Ministry of War.
79. "The Union is working hard
to ensure the successful completion and implementation of the
Doha Development Round of world trade talks."
80. If those who decry the EU's world-trade
policy—as "neo-colonialism", "capitalist
imperialism" and an assault upon democratic sovereignty in
the Third World—were to look at the whole picture, they
would see that the "citizens" of the "neo-colonial"
power, though currently prosperous, are destined to be victims
of this policy just as much as the Third World's poor are now.
As the mega-state comes into being, its prosperous inhabitants
become slaves through disenfranchisement, just as the world's
poor are being disenfranchised, or being prevented from attaining
enfranchisement. At that point, when democracy has been consigned
to history, living standards can, and will, be equalised by decree.
It might be argued that the poor would benefit. At least they
would become slaves with a supportable standard of living; but
would they not be better off as nationals of democratic, economically-developed
states? As for the EU's "citizens", they lose whichever
way you look at it.
81. "The EU will reinforce its
institutional relations with Africa at all levels and especially
with the African Union (AU)" and "It should also
strive for synergies with the Economic Partnership Agreements
(EPA's) which will start being implemented in 2008 and represent
a cornerstone for the regional integration of ACP countries and
their development in general."
82. Pseudo-representative umbrella-bodies
are of the essence, which the EU-method is distilling, and which,
because it consists of asymmetric consultation, always arrives
at "consensus" very close to the major partner's position.
An Africa/Caribbean/Pacific continuum of client statelets welded
into umbrella-bodies and policed by EU-troops, would enable the
continuing exploitation of its natural resources, while preventing
the growth of any industries, independence or democracy, which
might threaten the "international community's" global
system. The predatory nature of EPA's has been widely criticised
by humanitarians, who would never dream of abolishing the EU.
83. "Stabilisation and reconstruction
efforts in the Middle East and South Asia will have to be continued
and the Union's prevention, crisis reaction and peace building
capacities should be further reinforced."
84. Having wrung its hands, and shed crocodile-tears,
when, with enormous loss of life, Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded,
the EU later joined in. At the time of the invasions, predictions,
to the effect that this would happen, were dismissed by EU-apologists,
intent, as they were, on exploiting anti-American feeling for
their own ends. Who remembers that now?
85. "Electoral observation and
the efficient implementation of other human rights and democratisation
programmes will be important contributions to the promotion of
our fundamental values outside the European Union."
What are the "fundamental values"
of an unaccountable, consultative autocracy? It would be superfluous
to list them all, although "hypocrisy" must be emphasised.
Suffice it to say that their "promotion" is served by
the kind of "democratisation" it supports in economically
weak countries, where the population might be swayed towards EU-adhesion,
or client-ship, and the rulers are against the idea.
2.6 "Better Regulation—at
the Heart of the Commission's Daily Work"
86. "2007 will see improvements
to the system of impact assessment, the launch of an Action Programme
to eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens arising from legislation
at EU and Member State levels, and implementation of the updated
simplification programme: realisation of these actions will be
the core goal for 2008."
87. The "core goal"! During
its term of office, this Commission has succeeded in repealing
a few dozen, obsolete directives and regulations, while adding
thousands of measures to its infamous acquis. A few "environmental"
measures were delayed, after the rebuff of the French and Dutch
referendums, but confidence soon returned to the operators of
the regulatory sausage-machine, which now squirts out its enthusiasts'
favourite schemes faster than ever. Indeed, far from being a fellowship
of brotherly love, the EU is, above all, a regulation-machine.
If it stopped churning out "administrative burdens",
it would cease to exist.
88. "... the Commission will continue
to push hard to deliver significant and demonstrable reductions
in the administrative burdens faced by EU business."
89. Last year, Commissioner Verheugen—in
an extraordinary outburst of candour—put the cost of the
EU-regulatory burden at around €500 billion per annum. There
is no way in which this huge figure can be prevented from growing—let
alone be reduced—as long as the regulatory sausage-machine
exists, any more than the EU is ever likely to become a favourable
environment for smaller businesses or, indeed, a democracy.
2.7 "Improving Communication and
Communication Priorities for 2008"
90. "Communicating with citizens
about European issues remains a crucial task for the European
Commission in 2008" and "... the Commission will
continue to pursue and strengthen its efforts to better communicating
[sic] Europe in all policy areas."
91. The propaganda war is on. Unfortunately
for the Commission, because it is institutionally alien to the
peoples it hopes to make its "citizens"—and because
it lives a lie and is essentially unwholesome—it is incapable
of winning hearts and minds. It can only creep stealthily outward
like a mould, creating an anaesthetic odour of inevitability and
unchallengeableness. The member-governments' only hope of preserving
the EU-structure, which gives them their treasured supranational
status, heightened career-ladder and reduced responsibilities,
is to keep quiet about it, in the time-honoured, Jean-Monnet manner,
which has allowed the monster to grow to its present size. "To
strengthen its efforts to better communicating Europe ..."
somehow says it all.
"3. Part II: GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR HUMAN
AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR 2008"
For brief comment, please see Executive Summary.
16 April 2007
|
